A great day of EURO action! Both Cüneyt Çakır and Carlos del Cerro Grande's respective teams contributed to that with good, expected-level pieces of officiating - performances we will look deeper into during this post.
8' - there is some kind of holding, but it is relatively minimal and the attacker falls of his own accord, so correct for Çakır to give the go on.
26' - fair tackle, defender pushes the ball away regularly with his leg, good call.
54' - perhaps you can even make the case that the technically correct decision is a (S)YC here! But at the EURO, on this level, it is clear that UEFA want (much) more to eject a player than that, so either wise to turn a blind eye to it by the Turkish ref, or simply missed incident.
61' - let's just say it is a good job that the Portugal player jumped; nobody cared about this tackle though.
76' - actually a very borderline decision, when you remember that at least for IFAB, distance is immaterial in assessing handling scenes (if of course common-sense still says otherwise). The defender's arm is still tucked in to his body, not extended, and did come from a very close distance. Correct decision to play on.
80' - "better safe than sorry", even if this delayed flag could perhaps have been avoided, I don't think it is fair to blame Tarik Ongun for playing it on the safe side.
86' - penalty + yellow card is the decision which arouses the least attention from this situation. One can make credible cases that the holding was not really that much (no penalty), or that the body contact was just incidental (red card, deliberate DOGSO), I suppose.
The defender does clearly hold the attacker's arm for some seconds as the attacker is about to shoot, so penalty is the right call I think. Then, given that a body contact is involved, in addition to the match context, I myself would have decided the same as Çakır, yellow card.
Mark Clattenburg, 'winner' of the last EURO amongst referees, said it himself - self-preservation is the name of the game! But in this case, a yellow card is technically defendable (at least) too.
+92' - world class onside by Bahattin Duran, well done.
Foul detection and especially simple restart calls (33', 46', 63', 67') don't really count in his favour; the incident at 61' encapsulated a wider point - his control of the players' actions was actually relatively loose, even if it all worked out okay in the end.
So: all-in-all, certainly a good performance and convincing impression, but this was not the sparkling showing of this EURO so far, in my eyes at least. That being said, Cüneyt Çakır certainly passed the test in a mostly convincing way, and would deserve a top second appointment.
Let's work in reverse chronological order, starting with the mostly Spanish officiating crew.
Carlos del Cerro Grande's team in France - Germany
Big Decisions
Incidents:
40' - Potential second yellow card (challenge) / red card (VC) to Germany no.6
44' - Potential red card to Germany no.2 (violent conduct)
57' - Penalty area incident
66' - Offside call by Roberto Alonso Fernández
78' - Potential penalty to France (tripping)
85' - Onside call by Roberto Alonso Fernández, corrected by VAR intervention
---
40' - Potential second yellow card (challenge) / red card (VC) to Germany no.6
44' - Potential red card to Germany no.2 (violent conduct)
57' - Penalty area incident
66' - Offside call by Roberto Alonso Fernández
78' - Potential penalty to France (tripping)
85' - Onside call by Roberto Alonso Fernández, corrected by VAR intervention
---
The two calls in the most focus made by del Cerro Grande involved Kimmich, and then Mbappé-Hummels.
Sending the Germany defender off by either of the possible combinations at 40' would have been technically defendable; I don't think we could conclusively say that this categorically was not an act of violent conduct.
But, by the same token, I don't think you can conclusively say that this was not a disorientated attempt to kick the ball with unfortunate consequences but careless means. We are referees, not mind-readers - given the evidence we are presented with, especially the context (soft first YC, keeping 11 v 11 in a huge EURO tie, unclear nature) I am strongly in favour of no sanction here, probably with a strong warning.
It was noted here and elsewhere, quite reasonably too, that del Cerro should have been more attentive to Pavard's potential injury; after all, he was kicked in the head! However, I think that was a consequence of guidelines to be as forgiving as possible - if the Spanish ref acted very visibly, then he would have been under more pressure to send Kimmich off. That should explain del Cerro's underscored reaction.
Sending the Germany defender off by either of the possible combinations at 40' would have been technically defendable; I don't think we could conclusively say that this categorically was not an act of violent conduct.
But, by the same token, I don't think you can conclusively say that this was not a disorientated attempt to kick the ball with unfortunate consequences but careless means. We are referees, not mind-readers - given the evidence we are presented with, especially the context (soft first YC, keeping 11 v 11 in a huge EURO tie, unclear nature) I am strongly in favour of no sanction here, probably with a strong warning.
It was noted here and elsewhere, quite reasonably too, that del Cerro should have been more attentive to Pavard's potential injury; after all, he was kicked in the head! However, I think that was a consequence of guidelines to be as forgiving as possible - if the Spanish ref acted very visibly, then he would have been under more pressure to send Kimmich off. That should explain del Cerro's underscored reaction.
Regarding the latter scene, if I may, I'll borrow the analysis of former Elite Development Category Mario Strahonja, kindly translated by our user Forlan below:
"The first impression looks like a penalty kick, however, chronologically if you look, the biggest contact happened outside the penalty area, which ordered the coordination of Mbappé's movements. Later Hummels had the intention to go for the ball and the back of his foot was a little touched, definitely the intention was the ball. If you have minimal contacts, this is a situation where you have given support to the referee. It is definitely not a clear and obvious mistake. There will be discussions about that now. The tendency is not to whistle penalty kicks lightly. For me, it was not a penalty kick."
I essentially agree entirely with Strahonja - the first contact Hummels made with Mbappé in his tackle did not alter his stride, his balance, and the second was a fair one when challenging for the ball. The Spanish referee was excellently up with play, and after a moment's ponderance, took the correct decision.
By the way - a 'potential penalty kick' was not even mentioned during the fulltime analysis of this scene by the former football players on British television for this match, for what that is worth to us. Play on was the widely expected decision from non-refereeing people, at least from what I've seen anyway.
---
Vis-à-vis the decisions of assistant referee no.2 - I saw that some people criticised Alonso Fernández for not immediately raising the flag, which surprised me. Mbappé, without needing to pass to a teammate, managed to convert that chance into a goal (and it was not surprising that such a skilled player could do that) - that is reason enough to support a common-sensical delayed flag, surely!
We should be careful to criticise too much an assistant referees for not having the sprint speed to keep up with one of the fastest players in world football right now, but given that there was no crossover at 85', we could still expect the AR to get that one right in real time. A clear mistake, corrected by the video match officials.
---
"The first impression looks like a penalty kick, however, chronologically if you look, the biggest contact happened outside the penalty area, which ordered the coordination of Mbappé's movements. Later Hummels had the intention to go for the ball and the back of his foot was a little touched, definitely the intention was the ball. If you have minimal contacts, this is a situation where you have given support to the referee. It is definitely not a clear and obvious mistake. There will be discussions about that now. The tendency is not to whistle penalty kicks lightly. For me, it was not a penalty kick."
I essentially agree entirely with Strahonja - the first contact Hummels made with Mbappé in his tackle did not alter his stride, his balance, and the second was a fair one when challenging for the ball. The Spanish referee was excellently up with play, and after a moment's ponderance, took the correct decision.
By the way - a 'potential penalty kick' was not even mentioned during the fulltime analysis of this scene by the former football players on British television for this match, for what that is worth to us. Play on was the widely expected decision from non-refereeing people, at least from what I've seen anyway.
---
Vis-à-vis the decisions of assistant referee no.2 - I saw that some people criticised Alonso Fernández for not immediately raising the flag, which surprised me. Mbappé, without needing to pass to a teammate, managed to convert that chance into a goal (and it was not surprising that such a skilled player could do that) - that is reason enough to support a common-sensical delayed flag, surely!
We should be careful to criticise too much an assistant referees for not having the sprint speed to keep up with one of the fastest players in world football right now, but given that there was no crossover at 85', we could still expect the AR to get that one right in real time. A clear mistake, corrected by the video match officials.
---
I don't really think the 44' potential biting incident is worthy of great discussion - the pictures are hardly conclusive and to initiate a review because of them would have shown a "lack of football understanding" in my opinion. 57' is simply a correct call, regular save by the goalkeeper followed by a normal-footballing-contact.
Summary
Contrary to an apparent majority in our discussion section, I thought this was a good performance by Carlos del Cerro Grande.
It was visible that he was slightly nervous during the first half, but that doesn't automatically mean that this was a bad performance - the only thing I can really reproach him for is a wrong freekick at 11' (maybe angry reaction at 26'?). Late whistles at 24', 26' for instance did not give the most confident impression, but replays showed both decisions were spot on.
The opening yellow card was a good, even great, decision for my money. On the one replay shown, we are on the blind side of the contact, so we can't satisfactorily assess whether this challenge was actually reckless or not.
However, Kimmich does go in high on his opponent, runs off without apologising, and this all took place in a nothing area of the pitch. Do we actually want to chastise a referee who wishes to take such plays out of the game in potentially thrilling match between these two teams, or rather see a game with less play and more heavy fouls?
Look, I'm not saying a verbal warning wouldn't have been appropriate too, but I don't really see how this was an awful decision either - it was, at worst, a tactically valuable call in a game with a much different 'feel' to all the EURO games before it. Unlike the eleven games before it, it would have done, and did, benefit from the ref clamping down early.
The opening yellow card was a good, even great, decision for my money. On the one replay shown, we are on the blind side of the contact, so we can't satisfactorily assess whether this challenge was actually reckless or not.
However, Kimmich does go in high on his opponent, runs off without apologising, and this all took place in a nothing area of the pitch. Do we actually want to chastise a referee who wishes to take such plays out of the game in potentially thrilling match between these two teams, or rather see a game with less play and more heavy fouls?
Look, I'm not saying a verbal warning wouldn't have been appropriate too, but I don't really see how this was an awful decision either - it was, at worst, a tactically valuable call in a game with a much different 'feel' to all the EURO games before it. Unlike the eleven games before it, it would have done, and did, benefit from the ref clamping down early.
Personally, I can't get that upset about no cards in the scenes in three further scenes:
34' - you can see del Cerro mis-assessed the duel, because he tells Müller to get up, but the stud-to-foot contact would be on the lighter side of reckless for me anyway, Müller did get up straight away, advantage benefitted the game well, and so on.
44' - given that Pogba might have just been bitten (we don't know for sure!), a caution here would have just inflamed everything; that being said, the lack of respect he showed Yuste Jímenez's personal space, whilst still being friendly (enough), would easily have justified a yellow card which I would have easily praised.
59' - sure the thigh-hit is a bit ungainly, and a yellow card would have been a good signal against such play, but the contact is not a hard knee or something like that (in which case, yellow mandatory, red possible), so I am slightly struggling to see the clear difference between that and a regular, late, potential yellow card charging foul honestly.
His technical accuracy even late in this end-to-end game was quite impressive in my estimation. It capped a good performance (8,3 level for me), still with some areas for development. Ultimately, Carlos del Cerro Grande rewarded and repaid the trust that Roberto Rosetti and UEFA had in him.
34' - you can see del Cerro mis-assessed the duel, because he tells Müller to get up, but the stud-to-foot contact would be on the lighter side of reckless for me anyway, Müller did get up straight away, advantage benefitted the game well, and so on.
44' - given that Pogba might have just been bitten (we don't know for sure!), a caution here would have just inflamed everything; that being said, the lack of respect he showed Yuste Jímenez's personal space, whilst still being friendly (enough), would easily have justified a yellow card which I would have easily praised.
59' - sure the thigh-hit is a bit ungainly, and a yellow card would have been a good signal against such play, but the contact is not a hard knee or something like that (in which case, yellow mandatory, red possible), so I am slightly struggling to see the clear difference between that and a regular, late, potential yellow card charging foul honestly.
His technical accuracy even late in this end-to-end game was quite impressive in my estimation. It capped a good performance (8,3 level for me), still with some areas for development. Ultimately, Carlos del Cerro Grande rewarded and repaid the trust that Roberto Rosetti and UEFA had in him.
Cüneyt Çakır's team in Hungary - Portugal
Big Decisions
Above:
8' - Holding incident involving Portugal no.4
26' - Penalty area incident (tackle)
54' - Potential second yellow card to Portugal no.4 (striking)
61' - Tackle incident
76' - Potential penalty to Portugal (handling)
80' - Offside call by Tarik Ongun
86' - Penalty given to Portugal (holding / tripping?) + YC (DOGSO)
8' - Holding incident involving Portugal no.4
26' - Penalty area incident (tackle)
54' - Potential second yellow card to Portugal no.4 (striking)
61' - Tackle incident
76' - Potential penalty to Portugal (handling)
80' - Offside call by Tarik Ongun
86' - Penalty given to Portugal (holding / tripping?) + YC (DOGSO)
+92' - Onside call by Bahattin Duran
---
My views on those scenes:
8' - there is some kind of holding, but it is relatively minimal and the attacker falls of his own accord, so correct for Çakır to give the go on.
26' - fair tackle, defender pushes the ball away regularly with his leg, good call.
54' - perhaps you can even make the case that the technically correct decision is a (S)YC here! But at the EURO, on this level, it is clear that UEFA want (much) more to eject a player than that, so either wise to turn a blind eye to it by the Turkish ref, or simply missed incident.
61' - let's just say it is a good job that the Portugal player jumped; nobody cared about this tackle though.
76' - actually a very borderline decision, when you remember that at least for IFAB, distance is immaterial in assessing handling scenes (if of course common-sense still says otherwise). The defender's arm is still tucked in to his body, not extended, and did come from a very close distance. Correct decision to play on.
80' - "better safe than sorry", even if this delayed flag could perhaps have been avoided, I don't think it is fair to blame Tarik Ongun for playing it on the safe side.
86' - penalty + yellow card is the decision which arouses the least attention from this situation. One can make credible cases that the holding was not really that much (no penalty), or that the body contact was just incidental (red card, deliberate DOGSO), I suppose.
The defender does clearly hold the attacker's arm for some seconds as the attacker is about to shoot, so penalty is the right call I think. Then, given that a body contact is involved, in addition to the match context, I myself would have decided the same as Çakır, yellow card.
Mark Clattenburg, 'winner' of the last EURO amongst referees, said it himself - self-preservation is the name of the game! But in this case, a yellow card is technically defendable (at least) too.
+92' - world class onside by Bahattin Duran, well done.
Summary
Cüneyt Çakır reffed this stand-out game well. He kept a cool head amongst the frenzied full stadium and partly more-anxious-than-normal stadium, and used his card(s) astutely in order to keep everyone in check. I appreciated his smiley, relaxed manner; the players did too.
His approach to disciplinary measures was exactly what the players wanted and expected - verbal warning at 23', drawing a line at 38', no cards at 53', 74'; very good calming verbal warning at 58'. That was well-played by the referee from Turkey, well done.
That being said, I wouldn't go further than assessing this performance as "good". Honestly, I didn't see a referee who was trying to positively mould the players' behaviour (58' aside, and that was more reactive anyway). Çakır only reacted to the incidents in front of him, then doing the minimal possible in order to not lose his hand on everything.
He succeeded for sure, but given that on a tactical approach level, this game wasn't actually that demanding (there were harder games thus far in my view), despite the full crowd and so on, it was only good up to a certain point. So I don't think we should lose the holistic picture in praising this performance too much, at least as I see it.
His approach to disciplinary measures was exactly what the players wanted and expected - verbal warning at 23', drawing a line at 38', no cards at 53', 74'; very good calming verbal warning at 58'. That was well-played by the referee from Turkey, well done.
That being said, I wouldn't go further than assessing this performance as "good". Honestly, I didn't see a referee who was trying to positively mould the players' behaviour (58' aside, and that was more reactive anyway). Çakır only reacted to the incidents in front of him, then doing the minimal possible in order to not lose his hand on everything.
He succeeded for sure, but given that on a tactical approach level, this game wasn't actually that demanding (there were harder games thus far in my view), despite the full crowd and so on, it was only good up to a certain point. So I don't think we should lose the holistic picture in praising this performance too much, at least as I see it.
Foul detection and especially simple restart calls (33', 46', 63', 67') don't really count in his favour; the incident at 61' encapsulated a wider point - his control of the players' actions was actually relatively loose, even if it all worked out okay in the end.
So: all-in-all, certainly a good performance and convincing impression, but this was not the sparkling showing of this EURO so far, in my eyes at least. That being said, Cüneyt Çakır certainly passed the test in a mostly convincing way, and would deserve a top second appointment.
Balance
The rave reviews in the wide media for this EURO's officiating only continue! In two very contrasting settings, both del Cerro Grande and Çakır showed technically convincing performances for us in refereeing too.
The first round of group matches has been an unequivocal success for UEFA, great work by all involved which they should be proud of - here's to it continuing in such a positive vain!
I must say I struggle to understand how you consider Kimmich's foul on Hernandez worthy of a yellow card, and not Gosens's foul on Pavard...
ReplyDeleteIt really baffles me how you’ve been able to write an analysis about Del Cerro without mentioning time wasting once. Did that not fit your positive review as he didn’t do anything at all (no cards, no warnings, no body language, not even a whistle)? Honestly, what did you think about that?
ReplyDeleteThis time I don't really agree with the analysis.
ReplyDeleteFirst, my impression was that Cakir's game was even the more challenging of the two due to more physical play, more crucial decisions and the higher risk to boil over (the last point being quite subjective).
Regarding Cakir, I agree that all important decisions were at least supportable. In the overall picture, I would assess him a bit better and say it was on the same level as the majority of previous performances in the tournament. Yes, some mistakes, but that is equalized by the higher difficulty. I think, I wrote something similar about Ekberg.
Then del Cerro Grande: In my opinion it was only an OK performance in most areas and less than that in the disciplinary area. IMO, the YC against Kimmich was too harsh and cautions against Kimpembe and Gosens missing. As there were no more cards given, the only good decision was not to send off Kimmich in 44' (although combined with a wrong free kick direction). Foul detection was not as good as we have seen by others and his game management felt too passive. Both points far away from bad, but also not without room for improvement.
So overall I would rate it as a 8.1/8.2, which makes it clearly the worst performance so far - without being bad.
So IMO, it's correct that he gets a second chance, but I would have preferred more rest for him - and then maybe something like ITA-WAL.
If he shows a fully convincing performance in his next match, I would absolutely understand a R16 match nomination.
Oh, and seeing the comment above: The time wasting aspect is one of the things, I mean with "passive management". But at least, he allowed an adequate amount of additional time in the 2nd half.
Delete+1
Deletelike he watched another match
First time since the start of the tournament that I strongly disagree with Mikael, but of course this can happen.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion del Cerro Grande performance is very difficult to assess as close to expected level. I think it is possible to back him regarding the crucial situations, possible second YC and the penalty appeal in second half, but apart from that he was far from the expected level, for what I could perceive.
In first half he didn't find a clear line with disciplinary control, the early YC would have been OK in case of different management afterwards, but in this way, it became something very inconsistent. He should have issued more cards, otherwise he should have kept more the first card in his pocket. The foul detection was not the best, players were always irritated in first half, the game was not really demanding like Cakir's one, if you ask me, otherwise I have the feeling it would have been worse. In my opinion he could have done by far better, with a different approach, more interaction with players and so on. The Rudiger - Pogba incident was something like a consequence of missing control by referee. I saw that he was very far from players, I want to repeat this again. Looking back at his previous game in EL game, I think that sometimes he is too "unpredictable", in the meaning that he takes unexpected decisions, that can make the things more difficult than they really are.
In second half, I would have liked a penalty but that's not the most important argument. The overall impression is the one of a referee who had to struggle a lot, to end the game without further troubles, but basically, performance is between 8.2 and 8.1 but no more than that... and you must back him for all crucial incidents.
I fully agree with Chefren's analysis on card management. It was inconsistent throughout the game and the players never seemed to understand the line - neither did I.
DeleteThe most negative incident in my opinion is the Kimmich-Hernandez episode at 39'. Del Cerro whistled and looked elsewhere. He should have rushed to the scene to avoid a possible confrontation, and because a player was possibly injured as well. To me no card is not acceptable in this situation. My personal feeling was that it was deliberate (VC), but even if not I don't see how this would not be considered as reckless. So either way Kimmich should have been sent off.
On the remaining crucial episodes I have my personal view but I accept that there can be more room for discussion, decisions were not easy. But in terms of personality and consistency we did not see the best Del Cerro in this game. Below expectation would be my final comment.
While I overally liked del Cerro's performance and I generally agree with Mikael with regard to it, I really didn't like the Cakir's one. No reaction to striking at 54' (the player was thrown off the balance but the arm movement was significantly extended to prevent an opponent from initiating a promising attack causing a reckless in its nature contact with an opponent's face - this really should have been a second yellow card), blatant SPA at 53' and wild tackle at 61' were really poor. I also can't find ANY argument for YC-only at 86' penalty incident... Irrati should have intervened and I hope he will be suspended at least for one game as Blom was after TURITA.
ReplyDeleteHello everyone
ReplyDeleteThanks for all those analysis, very detailed, and very helping to understand
I must say I agree a little more with Chefren, it seemed difficult for Del Cerro to referee this game. I thought he was passive on some events, and not reacting to dissent is not a good example to give (as dissenting like Pogba is really not a good example for young players). But, I know I personnally focus a lot on it as a rugby ref.
Having said that, the outcome was not affected and I think he took some good difficult decisions - I just dislike the way he "sells" them.
I have also to say that french press is very agressive onto Del Cerro (PK incident, possible RC incident) and I strongly disagree with them, that populism is not what they should aim for.
I mostly agree with this analysis. However, del Cerro Grande should have issued a YC to Gosens, who jumped in the back of the defender in my view. I cannot find arguments for a careless foul. And, as mentioned above, his mangement of time wasting was unacceptable in my book. Especially FRA GK should have seen a YC already in the first half. He did not even issued a strong public warning. That being said, I did not see the bad/poor performance that many here and in the European media criticized.
ReplyDeleteI have enjoyed reading the analyzes here so far and have almost always agreed, but I cannot explain how you could see a good performance at the expected level from del Cerro Grande yesterday. He had acceptable game control from my point of view, but there were just so many unpredictable or wrong decisions around law 12 that I find it difficult to agree. For me, it was the worst performance so far, together with Ekberg in AUT-MKD.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion Del Cerro did`t have a good performance yesterday. I share Chefren`s point of view. And for me it`s unfair to award Del Cerro with this game when there are refs who are still waiting for their chance. Kovacs would have been a very suitable choise for CRO-CZE. Oliver too, a game from goups C or E would have been logical. I refuse to believe that Kovacs will get only 1 game after his great impression he let in the EL QF.
ReplyDeleteI guess I'm in the minority on the Rudiger/Pogba situation, but here are my thoughts.
ReplyDeleteFirst, I adamantly disagree that a yellow card for Pogba would be appropriate. Imagine a scenario where Pogba is booked for telling Jimenez he just got bit and then the video shows he got bit, yet the referee team did nothing! With the no-call, you can pair it with Pogba expressing his frustration and allow it to fade into the background. All things considered, it's a blip on the radar. Carding Pogba--a player known to be volatile--would only inflame the situation and could lead to disaster. It is not hard to envisage a scenario where Pogba is sent from the field after being bit. Just imagine those optics.
Second, I'm sorry, but he was bit. The idea that the video isn't conclusive feels bizarre to me. What do people suppose Rudiger is doing with his mouth? Gently carressing Pogba's shoulders with his lips? If this isn't conclusive evidence of a bite, then you're never going to have conclusive video evidence of a bite and the idea that VAR can intervene on a bite becomes fantasy. This is a bite. It's a red card. We should not pretend otherwise.
Third, it is also obvious that Cerro Grande and Jimenez should not be expected to catch the bite. So no problems there for the on-field team.
So that leads to the fourth and final point. What should VAR do here? It's a big philosophical question. You have to first wonder at what point they had video evidence of the bite. It probably was not immediate. So they'd be reacting well after the restart, which is perfectly within protocols on VC and biting, but would be VERY strange to the players on the field and the wider world. On the one hand, you have clear evidence of an obvious biting incident. On the other, it's a rather tame match about to enter half time and the consequence of an OFR would be a red card and a 3-match ban. Sitting in the main VAR chair, what do you fear more? Is it "missing" this bite and having a discussion about potential intervention occur in some media and online for a few days? Or is it sending down one of the most unusual OFRs to-date in an international event and prompting a red card that will be forever remembered? I don't think anyone should doubt the psychological pressures in a decision like this.
Ultimately, I think this SHOULD have been sent down. Rudiger should have been sent off for that. But I fully understand why it wasn't. I just wonder what Rosetti & co. think.
I agree with your analysis, Mikael, like almost always.
ReplyDeleteAlso agree with Mikael. I think we are too harsh on Del Cerro, as evidenced by his second appointment.
ReplyDeleteAgain this supposed connection between second appointment and quality of first performance. Do you really think Del Cerro would have been removed from his second appointment with a 8.2 (or even 8.1) performance?
Delete